Sponsors Put FIFA in the Firing Line

By Simon Zekaria

AFP/Getty Images

FIFA President Sepp Blatter gestures during a press conference on May 30, 2011.

Football’s transformational shift into a global multi-billion dollar business ever-increases and so it is apt that a surprise intervention by some of the biggest consumer companies in the world into a debate over corruption threatens to escalate a growing scandal embroiling the sport’s governing body, FIFA.

FIFA, or Fédération Internationale de Football Association, has been a long-term target of attacks alleging corruption and cronyism, but has remained consistently steadfast in its denials and impervious to any criticism.

The tone continued Monday as FIFA president Sepp Blatter faced down a barrage of criticism from journalists over corruption within his organization; dismissed talk of a crisis at the Zurich-based body and vowed that only members could remove him from his post.

However, the standing of the 107-year-old sporting body, beset by accusations of bribery, can hardly be lower. Its moral credo and day-to-day business besmirched.

The 13-year incumbent Mr. Blatter is expected to be re-elected unopposed after his only rival candidate, Mohamed Bin Hammam, president of the Asian Football Confederation, withdrew from the race.

Mr. Bin Hammam has been provisionally suspended by FIFA’s ethics committee over allegations that financial incentives were offered to Caribbean Football Union members to support his candidacy. Concacaf president Jack Warner, who governs the regions of North, Central American and Caribbean football, has also been provisionally suspended. Mr. Bin Hammam was a leading figure behind Qatar’s successful bid to host the 2022 World Cup.

Denials, claims, counter-claims, appeals and controversial e-mail statements have followed the scandal in a febrile atmosphere, amid widespread calls for the June 1st vote to be postponed.

But it is recent declarations from some of FIFA’s major commercial sponsors, expressing concern at the damage allegations are causing the reputation of the governing body, that potentially represent the most significant development yet in the sorry tale.

Adidas, whose partnership with FIFA stretches back 30 years, was the first to break ranks. “The negative tenor of the public debate around FIFA at the moment is neither good for football nor for FIFA and its partners,” the German sportswear company said in a statement.

Coca-Cola was not far behind. A spokesman for the soft drinks giant said: “The current allegations being raised are distressing and bad for the sport. We have every expectation that FIFA will resolve this situation in an expedient and thorough manner.”

Visa is another important sponsor to call for reform: “The current situation is clearly not good for the game and we ask that FIFA take all necessary steps to resolve the concerns that have been raised,” a spokesman said Tuesday.

Adidas, Coca-Cola and Visa are three of six “FIFA Partners” for the next World Cup, to be held in Brazil in 2014. Emirates Airlines, one of the three remaining, along with electronics giant Sony and motor manufacturer Hyundai, was not immediately available for comment. These six companies are FIFA’s largest marketing affiliates for the showpiece event, run and organized by the governing body, which is held every four years.

In other words, their voice matters.

While the terminology used by the sponsors is largely cautionary in tone and lacks remedial detail, the making of any comment at all is revelatory.

Sponsorship agreements and broadcasting rights contracts, dovetailing and centered on the World Cup tournament, pour many millions into FIFA’s coffers as they seek to maximize globalized brand exposure from the world’s most popular sport.

Last year, FIFA, a non-profit organization, said it made a $196 million surplus in 2009, as revenues reached $1.06 billion. At the stadiums and across ‘fanzones’ during each tournament, the contracted sponsors enjoy privileged access to fans to drive revenue through marketing and retailing.

For Adidas, the maker of the official World Cup ball, gigantic sporting events are central to its commercial strategy. Last year, the ball and jersey business alone accounted for at least €1.5 billion of annual revenue.

Knowing these opportunities, the companies are normally careful to separate their commercial relationships from any political controversy in the game.

The comments, while a slap across the face for FIFA, do not yet signal that lucrative commercial relationships are in jeopardy. Indeed, with an estimated cumulative global audience of 26 billion people watching last year’s World Cup in South Africa, it would be brave to believe companies would act otherwise, whatever the level of political scandal.

Nevertheless, such corporate censure will set alarm bells off at FIFA House, as negative opinion widens and deepens among football fans worldwide.

Add a Comment

Thanks for reading The Source. We would like to direct you to MoneyBeat, the Wall Street Journal’s brand new global blog. MoneyBeat unites MarketBeat, The Source, Overheard and all the Deal Journal blogs, bringing together all the market, M&A, IPO and hedge-fund news from those blogs into a 24-hour hub for finance news. Check it out and let us know what you think at moneyblog@wsj.com.